"The Truth about Guns"

[SlackwareRobert]

But if Eric Holder wins in AZ, wouldn't that mean the state GFSZ would be trampling on
the federal law? Can't wait for him to argue supremacy only applies to racist Arizona,
not peaceful sheep up north who violate the constitution.

I don't see how you can argue that only the states permit applies, reciprocity states that
your recognized permit is that states permit in the eyes of the law.

 

[J.Gleason]

For me personally that is an easy question. To me it only makes sense to get some (voluntary) training for any form of carry. Either way, you are out in public with lethal force on your hip that you may need to use and it would seem prudent to know as much about the elements of self defense as possible. I believe training gives you the best chance of having a prosecutor/jury look at your case and decide that they would take the same actions you took in a particular situation. There are no guarantees of course as decisions are probably going to be made in fractions of seconds and the opportunity for making a mistake is great. However, I believe it greatly improves your chances of doing the right thing.

See I agree with you there. My only issue is there should be no mandated training. If mandated training were ever imposed, legislators would continuously raise the costs to make it harder and harder for the average person to be able to afford it. They would also continue to raise the standards in order to make them unattainable. And yes there would be some instructors that would be all in favor of the price increases. Not all of them, as I do agree there are some instructors that do it simply for the passion. But it is those that are interested in the money that have been and will continue to be in the ears of the legislators. But as you said, voluntary training never hurt anyone.

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

If mandated training were ever imposed, legislators would continuously raise the costs to make it harder and harder for the average person to be able to afford it. They would also continue to raise the standards in order to make them unattainable. And yes there would be some instructors that would be all in favor of the price increases.

I think in most states that require training the legislature doesn't set the price, the instructors do... having said that, when you "have" to get training, that forces people into the classroom and the market forces at play probably lead to higher prices in some cases, or lower quality instruction in others. People who want to seek training from the myriad of other ways, DVD courses, experiences friends, parents, etc, all forced to use the services of a private company.

I also believe that government mandated training, in the long run, decreases the quality of training and takes the motivation and focus away from the content and knowledge to be gained, and instead the training just becomes "checking the box". Just a b.s. requirement in order to get a permit.

I think when people buy training voluntarily, they'll go for quality first. When people buy mandated training, they'll go for the cheapest in order to "check the box" and qualify for a permit. Instructors will begin to build classes focused on minimum government requirements with the least cost on the instructors part to attract participants.

Government mandated training would also send the wrong message that once you have enough training to "check the box" on your application for a permit, you've got the training you need, rather than getting the mindset of people that continuous education and improvement should be the goal.

People will get out of training what they put into it.

Think about it... Wisconsin requires 30 hours of certified classroom instruction, 6 hours of driving behind the wheel with a certified instructor and 6 hours of observation of another driver behind the wheel with a certified instructor...

Yet one need only look out your car window and see that alone does NOT prepare people for what they will face out in the 'real world' driving.

How could an 8 hour course possibly teach people all they need to know about using a firearm for self-defense. Its meaningless typical government feel-good 'symbolism over substance' measure.

We should be instilling in people a personal value of training. continuous training. We shouldn't be distracted with what silly symbolic requirement a legislature may want to tag onto your RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

Training GOOD. Government mandated training BAD.

If the government gets involved in mandating training, quality will go down, price will go up and the mindset of the general public will be further conditioned to live by the nanny-state government-telling-you-everything instead of a more self-aware and accountable responsibility to better yourself because you have an inherent understanding of the reasons for doing so.

 

[Doug Huffman]

State v Head. 'Nuff said.

Uggh! Sausage in the making!

Head's issues will have to be elucidated (made clear) for any legal standard of permitted weapons carry 'training' to be meaningful. Elsewhere, where training and educating are not conflated, the ineducable are trained.

The annotation maybe does assume that the defendant knew of the victim's violent past. It does not stipulate how the defendant must know of that factual evidence. It could be from third person conversation, media reporting, court records, a number of sources. There is no stipulation in the annotation that the factual evidence can only be known acts committed on the defendant by the victim.

Some of you may be interested in reading the State v Head case. The State Supreme Court overturned both the district and appeals court decisions.

http://www.wicourts.gov/html/sc/99/99-3071.htm

'Nuff said.

 

[McX]

supreme comeback to me on that one shotgun. loved it. so when we leaving for bora bora?

 

[ccwinstructor]

In Arizona, training costs came down and training standards were lowered

See I agree with you there. My only issue is there should be no mandated training. If mandated training were ever imposed, legislators would continuously raise the costs to make it harder and harder for the average person to be able to afford it. They would also continue to raise the standards in order to make them unattainable. And yes there would be some instructors that would be all in favor of the price increases. Not all of them, as I do agree there are some instructors that do it simply for the passion. But it is those that are interested in the money that have been and will continue to be in the ears of the legislators. But as you said, voluntary training never hurt anyone.

Our experience in Arizona is opposite of what you presume will happen. The training costs started out at about $150 per person, plus about $50 to the State, and 16 hours of training. Then the market reduced the cost of the training down to about $100, then the renewal training dropped from 4 hours to 2 hours. Then we dropped the requirement for fingerprints for renewal, lowering the cost some more. Then we went from a 4 year time to renew to a 5 year time to renew, and increased the application fee to the State to $60 from $50, which made it slightly less per year. Then we dropped the renewal training requirement altogether, and reduced the training time required to 8 hours. This forced a drop in the training fee, by the market, down to about $70. Finally, this year we got Constitutional carry, and liberalized the training even more, so very many people don't require any additional training, and some can obtain it with a course of as little as 2 hours, if you want the permit for reciprocity. Reciprocity followed a similar course, with more and more states being recognized.

I don't think than increasing costs and increasing standards are at all certain, especially in an age where the Supreme Court ruled in the McDonald case.

 

[J.Gleason]

Our experience in Arizona is opposite of what you presume will happen. The training costs started out at about $150 per person, plus about $50 to the State, and 16 hours of training. Then the market reduced the cost of the training down to about $100, then the renewal training dropped from 4 hours to 2 hours. Then we dropped the requirement for fingerprints for renewal, lowering the cost some more. Then we went from a 4 year time to renew to a 5 year time to renew, and increased the application fee to the State to $60 from $50, which made it slightly less per year. Then we dropped the renewal training requirement altogether, and reduced the training time required to 8 hours. This forced a drop in the training fee, by the market, down to about $70. Finally, this year we got Constitutional carry, and liberalized the training even more, so very many people don't require any additional training, and some can obtain it with a course of as little as 2 hours, if you want the permit for reciprocity. Reciprocity followed a similar course, with more and more states being recognized.

I don't think than increasing costs and increasing standards are at all certain, especially in an age where the Supreme Court ruled in the McDonald case.

So, don't you agree that there was a lot of wasted legislation from start to finish. More than likely all the baby steps were taken because of the "Blood in the Streets, Wild West " statements that were made through out the legislation. The fact is there have never been any such incidents. It is all a scare tactic and with all of the legislation Arizona has went through it would be interesting to see just what that cost the tax payers in whole. Then the state ends up with Constitutional Carry anyways. It is very possible for other states to look at the steps that have been taken by the states that now have Constitutional Carry and cut out all of the wasted spending and start with Constitutional Carry to begin with.
I thin, and this is only my opinion, that if people don't have fees to pay they will surely be more interested in training and may even be more interested in spending a little more on that training to get quality as well. I would much rather have Constitutional Carry and let the people spend their money on training. As long as it is voluntary.

 

[Grapeshot]

So, don't you agree that there was a lot of wasted legislation from start to finish. More than likely all the baby steps were taken because of the "Blood in the Streets, Wild West " statements that were made through out the legislation. The fact is there have never been any such incidents. It is all a scare tactic and with all of the legislation Arizona has went through it would be interesting to see just what that cost the tax payers in whole. Then the state ends up with Constitutional Carry anyways. It is very possible for other states to look at the steps that have been taken by the states that now have Constitutional Carry and cut out all of the wasted spending and start with Constitutional Carry to begin with.
I thin, and this is only my opinion, that if people don't have fees to pay they will surely be more interested in training and may even be more interested in spending a little more on that training to get quality as well. I would much rather have Constitutional Carry and let the people spend their money on training. As long as it is voluntary.

"Baby steps" are most often taken because the incremental approach gets less resistance and works - it is the sum of the total results that count.

The all or nothing position most frequently gets you at least half of that........nothing! ymmv

 

[anmut]

I love that the picture he has to go along with his story isn't even correct.

 

[J.Gleason]

"Baby steps" are most often taken because the incremental approach gets less resistance and works - it is the sum of the total results that count.

The all or nothing position most frequently gets you at least half of that........nothing! ymmv

Don't get me wrong here, I agree. But if we want to see real change here in Wisconsin in our life time we need to change the way we do things and to start we should get rid of all of these baby steps and actually make some change that matters. There is nothing wrong with Wisconsin using the research and experience of the other states that have moved forward in order to skip over the unnecessary steps that proved to be pointless in the other states. Those steps cost the tax payers millions in wasted legislation time and the end results are the same anyways, Constitutional Carry.

So why not then pose legislation based on what is proven to work by the other states and save all that money since we supposedly have a budget that is so far out of whack?

These little steps are only there to satisfy and pamper the anti's who swear that there will be blood in the streets and the whole country will turn into the wild west all over again. This has been proven to be untrue so there is no further need to waste the money just to satisfy the likes of the Brady bunch or Wave.

Think of it this way, if things worked in the opposite direction and lets say that it did end up with Blood in the streets and the wild west show, the legislators would waste no time skipping over any baby steps and slamming the door on OC or CC with one huge step of prohibition. We have had prohibition long enough. It is proven false and there is no evidence to support otherwise.

While in the past those baby steps may have worked to set the slow motion of the wheels that have taken years and years of time only for the final outcome to prove that those baby steps were not needed to begin with. When you realize you are doing something the wrong way there is nothing wrong with changing the way you do things.
I haven't heard of any wild west shows in Arizona, VT or AK. Because they don't happen. It is nothing more than a scare tactic implemented by the Brady Bunch, Wave and every other anti gun group out there. The sheeple who are involved in these groups are so brainwashed that they absolutely cannot believe there can be any other way. That doesn't make them right.

I guess I am surprised that more of us don't see this.

 

[Grapeshot]

I guess I am surprised that more of us don't see this.

I think that it is seen, heard and understood.

A lot goes on behind the scenes in promoting changes in laws. Conversations with potential sponsors, committees and sub-committees to name a few.

If little or no chance is seen to push to a certain level, then frequently decisions are made to reach out to a more obtainable goal. There is something to be lost beyond the defeat of a bill - each circumstance is different.

Giant steps are obviously commendable/desired - giant defeats are not.
While I fully comprehend making a statement, it needs to be heard and understood by your legislators.

 

[Shotgun]

I haven't heard of any wild west shows in Arizona, VT or AK. Because they don't happen.

There is a wild west show in Tombstone, Az every day-- and twice on Saturdays and Sundays. LOL

Hopefully they remind their viewers that the events they are depicting were partly as a result of an attempt to implement gun control measures.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Don't get me wrong here, I agree. But if we want to see real change here in Wisconsin in our life time we need to change the way we do things and to start we should get rid of all of these baby steps and actually make some change that matters. There is nothing wrong with Wisconsin using the research and experience of the other states that have moved forward in order to skip over the unnecessary steps that proved to be pointless in the other states. Those steps cost the tax payers millions in wasted legislation time and the end results are the same anyways, Constitutional Carry.

I agree 100%. Why add additional government bureaucracy and expense? As I was talking to Sheriff Graves a month or so ago, he said he didn't support the last CC bill because of all the administrative burden it would of added to his department.

However, the best politicians are later remembered as consensus builders so it is possible that the only way to get a passable law is to compromise.

As I've said on numerous occasions, we need to work on getting our potential representatives and senators to commit to constitutional carry. If we get that then we don't need to compromise. If we don't then we will get what we get.

 

[Doug Huffman]

[ ... ] If we don't then we will get what we get.

Always, and we must pay for it. Only sometimes do we get what we pay for.